Jander Sunstar, CE?

[Scipion_Emilien]

Who is the sheriff???

[ScS of the Fraternity]

Who is the Sherrif

A very, very, very bad mistake.

Sherrif Von Zarovich, introduced in that most reviled tome, Champions of Darkness. Basically he's the perverted love-child of Darth Vader and the Sherrif of Nottingham, working for Strahd.


An interesting notion. Lawful evil may best describe subordinates, while other alignments describe the big boys. If they really followed the laws, they probably wouldn't be so powerful.

But, I would suggest that Strahd is lawful evil.
Azalin and Strahd need to use different strategies, given the geo-politic0-social makeup of their domains.

Azalin rules over a huge, heavily populated domain. Darkon is a very dynamic place, where a booming economy and a cosmopolitan culture can fuel rapid change. Darkon is confronted with Falkonovia, an aggressive enemy state that constantly threatens the realm. As well, Darkon has enough of a population base to allow the emergance of powerful individuals, who may provide a minor challenge to Azalin's power.
In short, Azalin is like a charcoal-burner; he sits on the mound, which may burst into flames at any moment. Its not very hard to smother the fires when they do errupt, yet he must remain eternally vigilant, lest a minor problem escalate and consume the whole mound in an inferno.
As such, Azalin can't rule alone. He needs a network of underlings and subordinates to regulate the domain. This network is a slow moving beaurocracy, where the servants fear taking action on their own, lest they make the wrong decision. To keep this operation above water, a formal chain of command must be enforced - so that people with the authority make the decisions, and people without authority follow orders.

Strahd, is the oposite. He rules over a sparcley populated, small sized domain. Not much happens in Barovia, and the population and resources are so small that there is practically nill chance of a challenge to his authority. Even better, the entire domain is within his personal reach, allowing him to personally see to any significant task.
As a result, Strahd's reign is much more personalized. There are no middlemen or low-level-functionaries in Strahd's personal command. Since Strahd is the one handling most major issues, he can make snap decisions on the spot. Thus his rule appears to be more arbitrary.

In summary, lawfulness, or the lack there of, cannot be infered by comparing Strahd and Azalin's methods of governance. Since the situatiopns of each darklord are different, so to would be their methods, regardless of their ethical alignments.

[Scipion_Emilien]

In summary, lawfulness, or the lack there of, cannot be infered by comparing Strahd and Azalin's methods of governance. Since the situatiopns of each darklord are different, so to would be their methods, regardless of their ethical alignments.

Personnally, i think the darks powers give strahd and azalin a domain fitting their personnality (alignement).

A chaotic personna will not be good to rule when he will have to supervise such a great country, while a lawful one will be better at building and keeping a network of subordonate. The dark powers weren t to give strahd a domain which he wouldn t be able to rule (since a part of his curse is to be the master).

Azalin was give a big domain because he was already lawful and it would be a best way to tormenting him by giving him the impression of power even if it risk to slip from his hands.

And thanx for the sheriff, ill think twice before including it in my campaign.

And only to open the can of worm: what would be Soth alignement? After all he still follow the measure.

[Bluebomber4evr]

I don't see how anyone can look at the material presented on Strahd and see how he's anything other than LE unless they don't understand how the alignments are defined.

Lawful characters always keep their word, prefer an organized society, and are disciplined.

Strahd epitomizes all of these. He always keeps his word. ALWAYS. P.N. Elrod demonstrated this consistently in the first I, Strahd novel. She also was consistent in showing that Strahd will not tolerate people who break his laws.

Also illustrating his lawfulness is his pact with the Vistani. He made the pact centuries ago and will not go back on it...nor will he allow any of his subjects to go back on it.

While Barovia has few laws, those laws are expected to be obeyed at all times. Punishment for breaking those laws is both merciless and unequivocal, which is a characteristic of a LE ruler. A NE ruler wouldn't post many laws and punishment would be infrequent and inconsistent (i.e. a harsh punishment for one person and then a slap on the wrist for a different person who breaks the same law). A CE ruler would flagrantly disobey his own laws (if, indeed, he made any) and would rule more with brute force, striking down anyone who displeases him.

To summarize, Strahd's consistent behavior, especially when keeping his word and enforcing the law, clearly indicate his overall lawfulness.

[Scipion_Emilien]

A CE ruler would flagrantly disobey his own laws (if, indeed, he made any) and would rule more with brute force, striking down anyone who displeases him.

To summarize, Strahd's consistent behavior, especially when keeping his word and enforcing the law, clearly indicate his overall lawfulness.

The paradox of Strahd, is since he is the law, he can never disobey his own law since what he say and do is the law.

And Strahd effectively rule with brute force, and strike those who displease him. He only have one brutal punishement for disobeying his law.

I remember him kill a whole Vistani tribe to please Soth, harsh if we consider he offer them protection.

I think that P.N. Elrod books rationalize a lot of Strahd doing, even if he often act in the heart of the emotion. But in reading his comportement in Knight of the black rose, he seem prone to outburst and erratic decision.

My own reading from PN Elrod novel was that he start being LB or LN, the war made him LE, and when he conclude his pact with death on a passionate outburst and assasinate his loyal chambellan that try to warn him of disilinya treachery, he become CE.

I would say that Stradh is a rather coherent, because of his great will and intellect, chaotic evil, perhaps a neutral evil one, but he dosen t really struck me as lawful.

[Rotipher of the FoS]

The question isn't whether Strahd or Azalin obey the letter of the law -- after all, they wrote the laws for their respective domains -- but whether they allow a code of behavior to govern their own actions at the expense of their whims. If either darklord were to forfeit an opportunity for personal satisfaction in the name of a greater principle, then that's Lawful behavior. If they cast aside the principles they profess to follow because of passion or impulsiveness, that's Chaotic behavior. If they do something purely for practical reasons -- neither in obedience to a principle nor in response to an emotional impulse -- that's ethically Neutral behavior, which any leader, Lawful or Chaotic, might carry out.

Azalin's behavior is restricted by his need to conform to his (misguided) notion of what a "proper king" should be. While on the one hand he hates his domain and longs to be free of it, he just can't bring himself to totally ignore the place and let it all go to pot: if he's Darkon's king, he's going to be a good one -- at least, what he considers to be "good", i.e. a dreaded tyrant no one ever dares defy or threaten -- because he still believes he's bound by royal responsibilities. The fact he can't stretch his beliefs to admit the possibility that his son Irik might have made a decent king as he was, without having to kill and torture people, shows that Azalin's warped notion of kingship is so firmly rooted in his psyche that he can't shake it. Keeping his sworn word (even when it meant putting up with Strahd for decades) is also a sign he feels bound by principles that are greater than himself.

Strahd has also allowed responsibilities inherent in his rulership to compel his actions (see "Caretaker"), and he once discussed with Azalin how he'd literally had to bleed for his lands. Of the two, Strahd was willing to make more of a personal sacrifice to live up to those responsibilities: he said if assuming leadership had required he be killed and resurrected, he'd have willingly gone through with such a ritual ... even though, at the time their conversation was written, there was no guarantee that D&D resurrection magic would work! Like Azalin, Strahd has allowed honor to restrict his actions; he likewise expects others of the Von Zarovich clan to conduct themselves with dignity and to keep their oaths.

Based on how both characters allow principles to limit their options -- not Good principles, but stringent codes of behavior nonetheless -- I'd conclude that both Strahd and Azalin are Lawful Evil, and that their mutual hatred is a result of other aspects of their (highly-incompatible) personalities than alignment. Granted, Strahd does throw out the rules and forget all about honor when Tatyana is at issue -- he proved that when he treacherously murdered a brother who trusted him, and his later crimes in pursuit of her doubles reinforce this -- but so does Azalin abandon his principles, when it's his son Irik in question (e.g. he'd have killed a member of a family he'd sworn to leave in peace to restore his son's life)! "Lawful" doesn't have to mean "never ever EVER let your actions be swayed by passion rather than principle"; human beings -- even those which aren't fully human anymore -- aren't the same as outsiders, capable of staying strictly within the bounds of their alignments every second of their lives. Even paladins sometimes resort to Chaotic behavior if the person they value most in the world is at stake, so why brand either darklord Chaotic for having one very specific lapse in his otherwise-Lawful convictions?

[Undead Cabbage]

Sherrif Von Zarovich, introduced in that most reviled tome, Champions of Darkness. Basically he's the perverted love-child of Darth Vader and the Sherrif of Nottingham, working for Strahd.

This is hillariously true, btw. Absolutely nasty tactics though!

Having done some more reading on Strahd today, and having considered the arguements presented, I stand corrected. And actually, as a player my first interpretation when my character met Strahd I interpreted him as LE.

Another arguement I might add towards the LE side is a matter of consideration towards other CE rulers. When we take a look at Melken, for instance. Melken is a leader with argueably all the power in Nova Vaasa (or at least at night time anyway). The Nova Vaasan nobility would like to think that they are in control, but really Melken runs the show as soon as sun goes down. Melken is your classic CE leader: every man for himself. No rules, other than an ever present fear for Melken and his thugs. There is not structure behind his rule.

In the case of Strahd, however, there is a matter of heirarchy.

Not to mention, for those of us who interpret Strahd as being similar to the Historical Figure, Vlad II "Tzepes" Dracula, Tzepes had a VERY strict code which made sense, in a twisted sort of way. (I know that Falkovnia ia supposed to be like Wallachia, but that's only because Drakov like to impale people. Otherwise it's more like Hitler's Germany).

On the topic of 'wild tendencies' there tend to be in both Strahd and (or orginal topic) Jander. My interpretation of a vampire has always been that vamps CAN have alignements other than CE, but from time to time they will always have CE tendencies due to their "vampiric Libido", if you will. Jander sometimes gets urges to be a (pardon my pun) blood-sucking jerk. Strahd sometimes gets urges to get all nuts about his lost love.

[alhoon]

I believe Strahd and Azalin are Lawful and had suffered greatly because of this. If Strahd was chaotic evil he wouldn't say "I'm the Law, so I have the right to drink people's blood if I get them at night" he would say "Who cares? I'll burn a house to see it burning and also to draw people out of it and attack them. Why? Because I can do so! Who cares about laws and rights?"

About his sometimes (rare they are) chaotic behavior:

Strahd is 60% lawful, 30% Neutral and 10% chaotic. That is a definetely lawful NPC. He may act sometimes as a chaotic evil or Neutral evil character but Alignments are guidelines. He is not an outsider.

About the Always in the MM:
Exceptions are considered to be 1 in the million.
Often is 50-90%
Usually is 99%.

IMO, vamps should often be chaotic evil.

[Augustus]

IF I were ever to use Sheriff Von Zarovich, I would have to first
-Change his name
-Make him less powerful both in combat and politically
-Do away with his decree that the elixer is illegal because that was dumb
-Give him some human qualities cause this is Ravenloft darnit!
So in the end I guess I would've been better off making my own NPC

[Drinnik Shoehorn]

And only to open the can of worm: what would be Soth alignement? After all he still follow the measure.

Soth is CE. He only followed the Measure because he wanted to show the hollowness of such a code of honour, after all if a creature like him, damned by the gods, can follow the code, what does it show about the mortals that follow it. But Soth would drop the pretense if he felt threatened, but he felt threatened so little that he never dropped it.

But Soth's honour was all fake and pretense.

[ScS of the Fraternity]

IF I were ever to use Sheriff Von Zarovich, I would have to first
-Change his name
-Make him less powerful both in combat and politically
-Do away with his decree that the elixer is illegal because that was dumb
-Give him some human qualities cause this is Ravenloft darnit!
So in the end I guess I would've been better off making my own NPC

An excellent conclusion.

[Scipion_Emilien]

I'd conclude that both Strahd and Azalin are Lawful Evil, and that their mutual hatred is a result of other aspects of their (highly-incompatible) personalities than alignment. Granted, Strahd does throw out the rules and forget all about honor when Tatyana is at issue

You convince me that Strahd is lawful with your long post.

[Ryan Naylor]

I agree with Rotipher. As I so often do.

That is all.

[Rotipher of the FoS]

Thank you, thank you, gentlemen.... {takes a bow}


Seriously, it's important not to let Lawful darklords' Evil lapses of morality become confused with a Chaotic alignment. Yes, when Strahd goes postal and tears a loyal follower apart because the minion screwed up and allowed a Tatyana-clone to slip away from his master, that's violating his usual Lawful code of conduct (to be a strict but reliable boss) in favor of his Evil side ... but if darklords weren't hypocrites in a crunch, siding with Evil before ethics, then they wouldn't become darklords in the first place!

[Manofevil]

Hey! Good Points!